If you think it's all Democrat-appointed judges for gay rights and overruling DADT, look again....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2010 10:56 AM GMT
    This site is featuring a news article about the latest pro-gay ruling with regard to the military. The judge noted is Ronald Leighton. If you think he's a Clinton or Obama appointee, guess again. But he is more likely to follow the Constitution, even if there's something he personally doesn't like. Let's see how many of you are willing to admit who appointed him - and where your real friends might be found.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2010 12:12 PM GMT
    Bush must be very happy right now about his choice. Not everybody's perfect, you know?icon_lol.gif
    Let's chat again if and when the day comes that we can vote for Federal judges.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2010 12:26 PM GMT
    I don´t get the conservative fuss about judicial activism.. how do people think that Bush got into power in 2000? Do they think he actually won the vote?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2010 1:35 PM GMT
    What judicial activism? It's called "following the Constitution."

    wikipediaOthers have been less confident of the term's meaning, finding it instead to be little more than a rhetorical shorthand. Kermit Roosevelt III stated that "in practice 'activist' turns out to be little more than a rhetorically charged shorthand for decision the speaker disagrees with";[8]:2-3 likewise, former Solicitor General under George W. Bush Theodore Olson stated in an interview on Fox News Sunday, in regards to a case for same-sex marriage he had successfully litigated for, that "most people use the term "judicial activism" to explain decisions that they don't like."


    This same Ted Olson who was in Bush vs. Gore and Perry vs. Schwarzenegger.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2010 2:29 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidI don´t get the conservative fuss about judicial activism.. how do people think that Bush got into power in 2000? Do they think he actually won the vote?


    Two points of response to this:
    If Gore had been able to win his own home state, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    And...the popular vote debate is, well, popular, but ignores the Constitution. Also, you have to recognize that many fiscal conservatives living in states like Virginia and Texas in 2000 simply didn't vote, knowing Bush would already carry those states. I was one of them. I don't cast my votes based on social policy anyway; that's not the role of government or politicians; they've just assumed it. And you, like most, simply tried to change the subject instead of admitting the Republican appointed judge served you best in this instance. I don't think Bush would regret the appointment at all. He would say it's working exactly as it should. I would be willing to be the conservative majority of the current Supreme Court would go the same way. But a liberal Supreme Court would never back other rights, like the 2nd Amendment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2010 2:58 PM GMT
    Getting back on topic here:
    same articleJudge Leighton targeted his ruling particularly at Margaret Witt and her military status, ordering only that she, and not all of the thousands of service personnel discharged under DADT, be reinstated. But his ruling triangulates with that of California U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, who earlier this month ruled DADT unconstitutional in general, and is considering an injunction against its enforcement nationwide—an injunction that the Justice Department will certainly appeal.


    So against your Leighton I play you Phillips (Clinton appointee).
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Sep 29, 2010 6:46 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidI don´t get the conservative fuss about judicial activism.. how do people think that Bush got into power in 2000? Do they think he actually won the vote?


    Yup!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2010 7:39 AM GMT
    bmchannel7 saidThis site is featuring a news article about the latest pro-gay ruling with regard to the military. The judge noted is Ronald Leighton. If you think he's a Clinton or Obama appointee, guess again. But he is more likely to follow the Constitution, even if there's something he personally doesn't like. Let's see how many of you are willing to admit who appointed him - and where your real friends might be found.


    Has someone been denying it? In fact, I think people are happy because it proves how constitutionally sound the arguments are. Even judges appointed by Republicans see it.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2010 4:57 AM GMT

    Gah, I've been reading to much Harry Potter lately. When I read the thread title I assumed the gays were trying to get rid of "Defense Against the Dark Arts" (DADT)...For a moment there I became another homophobic homosexual.

    Horrid stuff